정치경제학적 도시연구의 동향에 관한 지식사회학적 고찰 - 맑스주의 그리고 제도주의적 도시론의 과거와 현재 -

Abstract

Many modern people today spend most of their time in the city. Since the Industrial Revolution, the city has expanded as the capitalist economic system has come into full swing, and people are constantly gathered in cities. Since the mid-nineteenth century, cities have faced a variety of problems, including housing, unemployment, race, migrants, the gap between rich and poor, transportation, and public services. Where is the cause of the concentration of humanity in the city and the cause of the urban problem? In this paper we seek to find its cause in the expansion of capitalism. Since Engels, who found capitalist contradictions in urban housing problems, many scholars have developed urban theory based on Marx’s problematic consciousness. In order to overcome capitalist contradictions, Lefebre claimed that capital is the center of its creation and expansion. Through the space of the city, capital overcomes its limit. Although Lefebvre's work has a significant meaning to extend the Marxian theory that has been in the temporal domain only to space, it has not been able to give concrete details of how the capital produces and expands space. Harvey succeeded, refined and developed the work of Lefebvre. Harvey argues for the avoidance of contradictions of capital through spatial expansion through the unique concept of ‘dry environment’. In particular, he argued that capital circulates through the first, second, and third circles, and the capital circulating in the midst of declining average yields is contradictory through the construction of the dry environment, ie, cities, roads,, Which is a second cycle of capital. However, the second circulation also became a crisis and led to the third circulation, but it also reached the stage of capitalist panic. In this paper, we propose to introduce the theory of control in political economics urban studies. This paper argues that the crisis of the Fordist accumulation system can cope with the new accumulation regime through the new regulatory style, since the Fordism regulatory style is no longer able to solve the problems of modern capitalism. This paper disagrees with Harvey's claim that capitalist contradictions are avoided through cities and ultimately destroys them in cities, and capital argues that with a new modal form, it breaks through the crisis of a city or another space I have. One of the phenomena that has emerged through the flexible accumulation system and the corresponding control style since the Fordism accumulation system is the urbanism and the theorization of the enterpriseism is the urbanism. It is the core of the theory that the city of corporatism, which is represented by growth through competition, policies based on development, and profit maximization through growth alliances, operates the city as a corporation. As we have seen before, this study emphasizes that although the business-centered urban theory seems to solve the short-term urban problem, it ultimately deepens the contradiction of capitalism.If post-Fordism accumulation system has emerged since the Fordism accumulation system, if capitalism contradiction intensifies and capital accumulates new accumulation system in order to avoid crisis, if control style like enterpriseistic city theory persists. This paper deals with the appropriateness and limitations of each theories through a review of urban studies from the post-Marxian political economics perspective, and it is meaningful that they are looking for continuity between themes.